Ok... I admit it...

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm a total dumb-ass. I rented Casino Royale last night.

1. Where the fuck were all the cool James Bond weapons? Sean Connery had a mini helicopter, exploding watches and cameras. Roger Moore had a submarine car and stuff. Danial Craig didn't have shit except a locating chip planted in his arm that didn't do anything.

2. M carried the movie. Ms Dench is a great actress and this performance raised the character of M to another level.

3. The plot was even farther from the book than the David Niven/Woody Allen version in 1967. What the hell? Madagarcar?

4. David Craig is a lousy Bond. I cheered with the evil bad guy tortured his balls.

 

[rgraham666]

Did we see the same movie? I quite liked it.

All those silly gadgets got in the way. Plus I thought Eva Green was the yummiest Bond Girl in ages.

 

[MagicaPractica]

Wow, now I gotta see it just to see how bad it is.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Did we see the same movie? I quite liked it.

All those silly gadgets got in the way. Plus I thought Eva Green was the yummiest Bond Girl in ages.

The gadgets were part of the Bond scene, Rob. That was one of the things that actually got me to a theater to see. Back then it was more like Peter Graves of Mission Impossible and James Bond were trying to out do each other will new and innovative cool shit.

Sean Connery was a total class act and totally brutal. That was the appeal. And he always had a great line after killing someone ("Shocking" after electrohuting the bad guy by throwing an electric lamp into a bathtub with him.) Roger Moore was cool and more low key. But he was still brutal in his own way. Brosman I never really cared for. He was too cool. But Craig? All he could do was get the shit beat out of him. And he had to shoot the bad guys. At least Connery was cool enough to dump bat guano on Blofeld before blowing up his island (I've been there actually)

Hmmm... Eva Green didn't have a big enough part. (Well, some of her parts were quite big, actually.) And yeah, she's hot

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

Bond is just starting as a 007 in this movie, so it makes sense he doesn't have all the gadgets yet. I loved it and thought Craig a perfect Bond... much better than Roger Moore... yuck.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Bond is just starting as a 007 in this movie, so it makes sense he doesn't have all the gadgets yet. I loved it and thought Craig a perfect Bond... much better than Roger Moore... yuck.

Timothy Dalton wasn't too bad. They had gone back toward a Sean Connery character. But the lacked the cool gadgets.

The original Ian Fleming James Bond was a rather dismal short story. Bond has no personality at all and spends the entire story laying in wait in a field with a rifle to kill a bad guy while wondering to himself if the life of a spy assasin was worth it. I'm glad Fleming changed that.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Did we see the same movie? I quite liked it.

All those silly gadgets got in the way. Plus I thought Eva Green was the yummiest Bond Girl in ages.

Oh come now, the gadgets were why I watched the Bond movies, I couldn't wait to see what Q had worked up...I used to drool over his Aston Martin....

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Timothy Dalton wasn't too bad. They had gone back toward a Sean Connery character. But the lacked the cool gadgets.

The original Ian Fleming James Bond was a rather dismal short story. Bond has no personality at all and spends the entire story laying in wait in a field with a rifle to kill a bad guy while wondering to himself if the life of a spy assasin was worth it. I'm glad Fleming changed that.

You should read "A Man Called Intrepid" it's the true story behind the man that inspired the James Bond character, and he did have a license to kill.

 

[only_more_so]

I'm a total dumb-ass. I rented Casino Royale last night.

1. Where the fuck were all the cool James Bond weapons? Sean Connery had a mini helicopter, exploding watches and cameras. Roger Moore had a submarine car and stuff. Danial Craig didn't have shit except a locating chip planted in his arm that didn't do anything.

2. M carried the movie. Ms Dench is a great actress and this performance raised the character of M to another level.

3. The plot was even farther from the book than the David Niven/Woody Allen version in 1967. What the hell? Madagarcar?

4. David Craig is a lousy Bond. I cheered with the evil bad guy tortured his balls.

None of the early James Bond movies had a lot of gadgets and such. And how can you say the plot was far from the book? It was about as close as a movie in the 2000's can come to the original without being a period piece. It was far closer than almost all the other movies.

 

[JamesSD]

Casino Royale is a great reboot of the Bond franchise, making it more realistic and less silly. I've disliked a Lot of the Bond films, so I was pleasantly surprised at Casino Royale. There were a few too many long chase scenes with random bullets, and overall the movie was too long period, but it mostly worked. Eva Green did need a bigger role as well, but what can you do?

Overall, it was a quality, above average movie.

 

[Seamus123]

I did originally think that it'd be a bit of a shocker with no Q and all his gadgets, but I loved Casino Royale. I don't mind he's not in there. Plus it figures that a new, low-ranking 00 agent wouldn't have access to all of the neat toys yet.

 

[Guest]

im a little disappointed, really.
i thought you were going to say that you were the second man on the grassy knoll.

 

[rgraham666]

im a little disappointed, really.
i thought you were going to say that you were the second man on the grassy knoll.

How could she be? She's not a man.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

None of the early James Bond movies had a lot of gadgets and such. And how can you say the plot was far from the book? It was about as close as a movie in the 2000's can come to the original without being a period piece. It was far closer than almost all the other movies.

The very first Bond Movie I ever saw was Dr. No which was a very close adaption of the book (although I was somewhat distracted by Ursula Andress, I admit). You are right. Bond didn't have any gadgets. The second Bond Movie I saw was From Russia With Love. The first gadget appears in that film - the russian assasins watch. Then Goldfinger with the introduction of the laser (big thing back then!). Those films are just about or a little older than me.

In 1966 Our Man Flint came out. The Time Magazine review said, "Out bonds Bond" with reference to the gadgets. Then came a whole string of Bond look-alikes including the best forgotten, Charles Vine - "the agent with the biggest gun of all" - and yes...it was huge

In fact none of the Bond films have ever been either period pieces or completely true to the books. Most of the old films were combinations of several Ian Fleming books. The books took place in the late 50's. The films were alway in the NOW.

Note that James Bond was married once briefly at the end of The Spy Who Loved Me, and his wife was murdered by Blofeld. The next book in the series was On Her Majesties Secret Service in which Bond begins as a nut case staring at the birds on a park bench.

I've read all of Ian Flemings stuff with the exception of Man With The Golden Gun which he didn't finish before he died and I've seen every Bond movie now.

 

[Grushenka]

Jenny J, you finally disappoint . But then "Bond" is some kind of personal totem to most, more so to those who read the books (I don't).

I saw the Connery Bonds when they came out, in my early 20s, so he's been the benchmark for me. I only watched the first two Brosnans. He was OK but lacked the ultimate masculinity required. Daniel Craig has it. I look forward to his next Bond film. He's also a better actor than Bond (doesn't even pain me to say that).

Judy Dench as M was great casting, still is. In this last I also appreciated a "Bond girl" who was a woman, and an actress of some depth.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Jenny J, you finally disappoint . But then "Bond" is some kind of personal totem to most, more so to those who read the books (I don't).

I saw the Connery Bonds when they came out, in my early 20s, so he's been the benchmark for me. I only watched the first two Brosnans. He was OK but lacked the ultimate masculinity required. Daniel Craig has it. I look forward to his next Bond film. He's also a better actor than Bond (doesn't even pain me to say that).

Judy Dench as M was great casting, still is. In this last I also appreciated a "Bond girl" who was a woman, and an actress of some depth.

I think the appeal of Bond is much like the appeal of Dr. Who. To me Sean Connery will always be Bond. Nobody can ever replace him. The same with Tom Baker as Dr. Who. There have been seven or eight Bonds now and six or seven Whos. Your first is always the best